It seems that the consensus about a expected realistic return for a darwin's portfolio is around 20-30%. Is that taking into account leverage? I mean, if I have a more-or-less uncorrelated portfolio of 15-25 darwins, it will have a VaR of 3.x% or so. Increasing leverage to 2x will increase the VaR to around 6.x%.

If I understood correctly, as the darwin is VaR adjusted to 10%, the risk for each individual darwin will be increased (because the portfolio is only 3.x or 6.x VaR), and it will double returns/DD.

So, my question is, would be a realistic return for a 15-25 darwins portfolio, with 2x leverage and a 6.x% VaR , around 20-30%? Or would it be 40-60%? (because of double leverage in the investor's account) :?

Hi @NemesisCraze,no matter what you invest/trade, what matters is risk you take to archive your goal.consistently, the best traders / fund managers with acceptable risk are in 10-15% year ( annualized calculated in minimum for 3 years, that how it should be done... ( effectively only for the best) OldSchool

Exact, if you are so good that you have 100% good darwins in your portfolio you should make 30-40% leveraged.DD does not double because of diversification.More than 20 darwins leveraged give a portfolio VaR of 6%.

True hedge funds like Winton have a lower return because their system have a much higher capacity (billions)

not so simple but agree in general...VaR as presented by darwinex , for me , is similar to "standard", never will be sames criteria, level of confidence, etc... so in reality never directly comparable... so a good trader, darwin with 10% VaR (95% confidence, etc), can have those yearly returns, even double of it ( 20-30%).for a investor ( portfolio), increase number of darwins reduce risk, that is correct!, in terms of returns, i still not sure, but my filling is that a number between 5- 10 darwins, is more adequate then 20.... losers/ high divergence /high risk strategies can reduce risk, but also affect seriously a portfolio potential annualized profitability... conclusion a investor leverage x2 with 5-10-20 darwins, can have a realistic expectation of 30-40% consistently annualized ( double or more then best managed futures /CTA's) and VaR of is portfolio around or below 10%, the only problem is to identify those 5-10 , or 20 according to @CavaliereVerde, with that consistence , annualized returns. (LOL)OldSchool

It seems that the consensus about a expected realistic return for a darwin's portfolio is around 20-30%.

Just for a test purpose.... I have listed all darwins for last year return (from best to worst) and I have taken the first hundred darwins. From those I have eliminated all that have a migrated history less than one year. 76 darwins remained and the average return was 36.76% [highest 81.03% lowest 27.11%] So what we do with this? Very little for now I'm still waiting for historical data set to try to figure out what is possible to achieve.... anyway it's better to see a 36.76% on average for the top 100 darwins than to see a lower number!

Hi there,i don't like it very much (minimum must be 3 years, other important aspects should be in place, etc, etc, but only with this Topic purpose i decide to share a filter, with what i think some "big" investors can star look at Darwinex, as they now had more reasons to be "secure" in deposit big amounts...)https://www.darwinex.com/filter-custom/9619today from that filter come-up 164 darwins 8,4% very good number!now order by investors capital and take in consideration above 1/4 of Million will come-up 5 darwins. ( investors have always reason, and this are darwins where investors are punting more money, for me that should mean something...)

analyzed their performance in 2 years ( bigger significance to easy check in darwinex), a investor that invest 1K in each darwin at that time, , and decide to close their investment today ( 2y back from now ) and pay 20% of commission on profits, and that others cost values are irrelevant for this analysis, like no divergence that comes from filter, etc.... that investor will had a CAGR of +22.38% and +44.79 if invested 2x Leverage.OldSchoolhttps://www.darwinex.com/filter-custom/9620

Good filter! There's only one small problem, the divergence and the VAR is calculated "as now" and so if during the life of the darwin the divergence or the VAR has been bigger you can't know. For example PME had a divergence above 2% LOM a VAR above 20% (just the first that I saw).

That's why I'm asking for historical data ... hope that when august is over we will have them.

THIS is the real problem!!Instead of showing a"backtest" of current divergence that is quite useless...they should PLOT PAST DIVERGENCEso that everyone could study its evolution with investors capital!

Now we have only our memory!Crazy divergence on THA ... VTJ ... QUA

About VaR the solution would be simple: a filter for high Risk Stability would be much better than just low VaR .But of course this is my humble opinion.

Hi @GAlbano76, @CavaliereVerdeAgree!that filters are not any type of recommendation! there are other important aspects for me to decide invest on a trader, just a general approach from my general experience how possible to get near to select that 5-20 darwins in a simple way and if traders selected are thrust-able by having a similar behavior what can be Realistic expectations for an investor.about VaR, a consistent profitable trader , trades with low VaR, but is there a big problem of trading a 20% VaR during some his trading history? no absolutely not because what is important is understand why it happen... and there are cases that understand it is positive and can give good information about trader to investor, and in other cases information is so bad that is sufficient for a investor decide never invest in that trader....related to this from a "algo" trader... intersting to read...

hi there,taking in account my "observations" and second filter I present in post above, it come-up from all darwins only 15 darwins!, taking in consideration the possibility of I'm not completely wrong and take can be a step to look for the most consistently profitable darwins with acceptable level of risk, I have to testify here, from evidences, that in general investors at Darwinex are not looking for it! they must be looking for immediate / potencial / quick profits instead!, because how is possible to explain so few number of investors and AUM for at least 11 of the 15 darwins??OldSchool

because how is possible to explain so few number of investors and AUM for at least 11 of the 15 darwins??

Because investors tend to be impressed by stuff like 100% return and 10% DD , they invest above average trackrecords (even if often are provided by good traders) and they are always disappointed by their below average results...

Your second selection is not so bad but for example, would you invest a darwin like JZH ?I have monitored it very well and it is a gambler, averaging down without limts to recover a drawdown, recently it hasnt' worked and we see the result.This is the reason that something like Risk Stability > 6 is much better than DScore >45

Hi @CavaliereVerdei have not "checked" from what comes up if any of that darwins are invest-able in my criteria!, just try to contribute for what realistic expectation of investors can be....so darwind come up only with criteria on filters, that seams for me adequate for bigger investors, in a simple way for investors in search for more consistent traders...for those in general that had "see" my general opinions here, no surprise on what i will say, but has you ask...No unfortunately it does not fit in my criteria to be invest-able, and it is even curious, that by coincidence, more or less at same time i post several posts about a risk associated with this type of systems, it start to constantly lose investors,.... not by poor performance, not by divergence...., just a coincidence...OldSchoolPS, easy to check in assets & Timeframes, compare ALL with 3M, and "see" what seams perfect to becoming very ugly... absolutely nothing personal against the trader..., just pretend warning about danger this type if trading can have to investors...

I have made a little more "research".A filter with two criteria: at least 350 days in darwinex anda) at least 100€ in equityb) at least 500€ in equityc) at least 5000€ in equityd) over 9999€ in equity

What I found is realistic and interesting as confirm something that most beleived, that if you can't afford to risk yourself more than a good dinner, your strategy and your confidence in making positive returns is not so good.

Obviously there is a sort of "survivorship bias" ... (closed darwins and winning darwins that increase equity)All said, remember that this is *average" and so a darwin with an equity > 10.000 doesn't mean that will be a winner and a darwin with an equity below 500 will not be a loser for sure.

CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 73 % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.